ArticleCureus2025
Benchmarking Two Leading Large Language Models for Pulmonary Embolism Identification on CT Pulmonary Angiography.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 Omni (GPT-4o) (OpenAI, Inc., San Francisco, CA) and Gemini 2.0 (Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA) have enabled their application in medical image interpretation. This study evaluates the ability of these LLMs to detect pulmonary embolism (PE) on computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) images using simplified prompts modeled after the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 examination format. Methods Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) images from the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) PE Detection Challenge 2020 were converted to Portable Network Graphics (PNG) format and analyzed using GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0. A total of 12,533 PE-positive and 11,835 PE-negative slices were evaluated using GPT-4o, while Gemini 2.0 analyzed 12,302 PE-positive and 12,063 PE-negative slices. Images were presented using application programming interface (API) prompts designed to elicit categorical responses. Performance metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score, were calculated for each model. Results GPT-4o demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity, correctly identifying 38/47 PE-positive cases (81%) but only 5/49 PE-negative cases (10%). Gemini 2.0 showed the opposite pattern, correctly identifying 50/51 PE-negative cases (98%) but only 7/49 PE-positive cases (14%). F1 scores reflected this divergence, with GPT-4o performing better on positive cases (0.59 versus 0.16) and Gemini 2.0 on negative cases (0.70 versus 0.25). Conclusion GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 exhibited opposing diagnostic biases, GPT-4o favoring sensitivity and Gemini 2.0 favoring specificity, highlighting current limitations of LLMs in radiological diagnosis. While promising, these models require further refinement before integration into clinical workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.